Pres. Obama Will Remove Abortion Funding Ban From Health Care Bill

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Top Obama advisor David Axelrod on Sunday confirmed what pro-life advocates already suspected would happen. He said President Barack Obama will work with congressional Democrats to remove the abortion funding ban the House approved in its version of the government-run health care bill. [Does anyone believe that the most aggressively pro-abortion President in the history of the USA will allow this bill to avoid funding abortion? Really?]

Axelrod says that, because the Stupak amendment allegedly goes beyond the status quo under the Hyde amendment (which bans abortion funding under Medicaid), Obama will make sure the amendment is yanked during the conference committee. [Isn’t it true that Hyde must be reaffirmed each year:?]

That’s the part of the legislative process that will occur if and when the Senate approves its own health care bill, which will likely start debate with abortion funding.

"The president has said repeatedly, and he said in his speech to Congress, that he doesn’t believe that this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion," Axelrod said today on CNN’s State of the Union program. [I think that is disingenuous. I suspect the President wants an increase in abortion, despite his rhetoric. That is the only explanation for his actions.]

"This shouldn’t be a debate about abortion. [?] And he’s going to work with Senate and the House to try and ensure that at the end of the day, the status quo is not changed," he added. "I believe that there are discussions ongoing to how to adjust it accordingly." [Okay… he is repeating "status quo". That must be the administration’s strong talking point now.]

Axelrod said that an agreement with ruling Democrats in Congress to remove the ban on taxpayer funding of abortions "can and will be worked through before it reaches his desk."

Axelrod’s comments come after Obama’s own remarks which made it appear he would favor removing or weakening the Stupak amendment.

"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama told ABC News last week. "And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions."

Obama appeared to side with abortion advocates who claim the Stupak amendment in the health care bill somehow changes the current status quo on government abortion funding.

“There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo” on abortion, Obama added. “And that’s the goal.”

Obama also sided with pro-abortion groups in saying he wanted to make sure “we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices,” because he had promised that “if you’re happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, it’s not going to change.”

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, chided Obama for his comments.

"The only thing that will prevent the health care bill from being ‘an abortion bill’ is precisely the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, as the House of Representatives recognized by a 46-vote margin," he said.

"The phoniness of Obama’s claim that he has been trying to preserve the ‘status quo’ on abortion policy should be evident to any observer by now. In reality, the White House and top Democratic congressional leaders have been working hard to create a national federal government health plan that would fund abortion on demand, just as Obama promised Planned Parenthood," Johnson added.

I understand this is not the main point of this post, but I wanted to put this out there as I think it may be an increasingly important point in the coming months/years. The Hyde Amendment, which you correctly pointed out needs to be approved each year, does not “ban abortion funding under Medicaid.” In fact, it very obviously allows abortion in several cases, namely: in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s health are in danger. You may read these clauses in section 508.a.

I believe this is an important clause to remember since we must fight to end all abortions, not just those which end “normal” pregranancies. Since the Hyde Amendment must be approved each year, its actual wording may very well change from year-to-year. This means that the exclusion of certain types of abortions may grow or be redefined to allow more abortions under this supposedly anti-abortion rider. We must not rest knowing that this-or-that amendment will prevent abortions – as they do not prevent all abortions and can allow for quite a range of interpretation.

The problems of interpretation especially concern those exceptions for the “health of the mother.” For example, the current Hyde Amendment states “The limitation established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.” While this at first glance may only permit those abortions for women who will certainly perish if they give birth to their children, it actually is rather broad since the “life-endangering phsycial condition” is simply an example as witnessed by the clause beginning “including.” If this clause was restricted to only life-threatening pregnancies, the word “including” would be changed to “specifically” or something similar.

“Status Quo”?… I though he campaigned as the “disciple of Change”. Just goes to show that this administration will say whatever it thinks will please the electorate with the unfortunate fact being he was elected by the pro-abortion crowd with the complicity of too many “Catholics”. We have met the enemy and it is us!

Would it be fair to suspect that Catholics were deliberately tricked into supporting the House bill, in order to get it into play, but with the full intent to remove the anti-abortion provision in conference between House and Senate?

A darker suspicion might be that USCCB staff coordinating the bishops’ effort were aware of this intent, but not all the individual bishops themselves.

What will it take for the Bishops to realize that the Democrat Party and the Democrat Administration as presently constituted really is, as Archbishop Burke correctly identified it, the Party of Death? The Bishops were duped and if their opposition to abortion (and while they are at it their opposition to the other immoral aspects of the so-called health care bill) is sincere they’d better immediately come out again in strong oppostion to the entire bill. They need to pull no punches and call it like it really is rather than let their naive and pro-Democratic perspective get in the way of their moral obligation.

Bishops, stay awake. The inhabitants of hell are prowling to tempt us, especially the leaders, in this the supreme moment for their Culture of Death. Take the 2000 pages of rot named healthcare and publicly cast it into a big fire where it belongs. Then get on with the business of calling us to conversion.

This is indeed, no surprise. The USCCB needs to oppose the entire enterprise as being Pro-Death. The bishops must get themselves and their staff away from the Part of Death. I was horrified by how closely their staff worked with Pelosi, as if they approve the larger issue, so long as Stupak was passed. They were played.

With or without Stupak, this is not a pro-life bill. It will do nothing to improve the status quo (to use Obie’s words) on access to health care in America. It bottles up insurers and medical providers more than ever. The thing to do is to pre-empt state regulation. Open up to interstate pooling/competition and reduce the scope of mandated services to be covered, among other things, like tort reform. Alas, these market-driven ideas fall on deaf ears. I was disappointed in Bp. Morlino on TWO w/Ray Arroyo Friday. God bless him, but he seemed not troubled by the big picture. He was stuck on concern for immigrants, legal and illegal, though the USCCB restrained themselves to speak of legal immigrants. I don’t think they understand what’s at stake.

It is my understanding that since whatever comes out of this legislation will fall under a completely separate appropriation, the Hyde Amendment would not apply, so none of its restrictions will have any effect.

that he doesn’t believe that this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion.

Did the President in fact say this during his speech to Congress. I sure didn’t hear it although it is certainly possible I missed it. I do clearly remember him saying that he wouldn’t allow any federal dollars to be used for abortion in his healthcare bill. Of course he later clarified that to mean not his, non-existant bill. You know I really hate being taken for an idiot. Regardless, if he were sincere (which I doubt he is) then he would simply call for an amendment in the Senate that meets the criteria he wants, not simply the outright elimination of the Stupak Amendment.

Does he – or any close family or friends – have any close financial ties to the abortion industry? It’s not unknown for inhabitants of the White House to pay back those who put them into office. Didn’t Planned Parenthood take a local director who quit to court to try to gag her from discussing their business plan? eg – *increasing* abortions to increase their profits.

The President promised the bishops earlier that the new healthcare plan would not fund abortions. And here he is trying to put the abortions back in the plan after the Stupak Amendment took them out. It’s quite simple – he is what that congressman shouted at him a few months ago – a liar. A shameless liar.

Soukup: The Stupak amendment moved one of the clauses (bolded below), to eliminate the possible ambiguity in the current Hyde wording:

No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

According to either the Hyde or the Stupak wording, the “including” clause gives an example of a doctor-certified, life-threatening, physical malady, namely, one that is caused by or arises from the pregnancy itself. Presumably there are other maladies, not tied to the pregnancy itself, that qualify, but they still need to be doctor-certified, life-threatening, physical maladies.

Of course Obama is going to do everything he can to increase the number of abortions. He’s been bought and paid for. But the real battle will be in the Senate; that’s always been true.

And Obama is kind of busy having the riot act read to him in Asia right now, about trying to devalue his way out of our economic mess. They see through him like glass. Maybe God is keeping him distracted.

Remind me how he plans to pay for all these abortions he wants without enormous tax increases. Focus on that with the pro-abortion crowd. Do they want to put their money where their mouths are?

I still think the bishops, prayer, and a united country can stop this bill. I have been spending more time on the phone lately with my congressman and senators than my own friends, almost. And whoever it was that said it helps to praise them when they come through – you’re right :) I’ll be knocking on doors for mine in the next election.

Search Fr. Z’s Blog

Search for:

When you shop…

... through Amazon, please, come here first? Enter Amazon through my search box. I'll then get a small percentage of everything you buy. (Pssst - Can't see the search box? Turn off your "ad-blocker" for this site!)

My wish lists

The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but the victory belongs to the LORD.

- Proverbs 21:31

For Easter: another ethereal music CD from the chart-topping nuns…

Support them with prayer and fasting.

CLICK to buy Car Magnets & Stickers

Aedificantium enim unusquisque gladio erat accinctus.

- Nehemiah 4:18

"Let God arise! Let His enemies be scattered! Let those who hate him flee before His Holy Face!"

CLICK and say your Daily Offering!

Let us pray…

Grant unto thy Church, we beseech
Thee, O merciful God, that She, being
gathered together by the Holy Ghost, may
be in no wise troubled by attack from her
foes.
O God, who by sin art offended and by
penance pacified, mercifully regard the
prayers of Thy people making supplication
unto Thee,and turn away the scourges of
Thine anger which we deserve for our sins.
Almighty and Everlasting God, in
whose Hand are the power and the
government of every realm: look down upon
and help the Christian people that the heathen
nations who trust in the fierceness of their
own might may be crushed by the power of
thine Arm. Through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee
in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world
without end. R. Amen.

Yes, Fr. Z is taking ads…

... and there will be nearly 1,000,000 page loads this month.

A bit more food for thought…

“Only one sin is nowadays severely punished: the attentive observance of the traditions of our Fathers. For that reason the good ones are thrown out of their places and brought to the desert.”

- Basil of Caesarea - ep. 243

Help Monks in Wyoming, Fr. Z, and get great coffee too!

Food For Thought

“The legalization of the termination of pregnancy is none other than the authorization given to an adult, with the approval of an established law, to take the lives of children yet unborn and thus incapable of defending themselves. It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation, and it is very difficult to speak of obsession in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with a fundamental imperative of every good conscience — the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being.”

- St. John Paul II

PLEASE RESPOND. Pretty pleeeease?

Should the US Bishops have us return to obligatory "meatless Fridays" during the whole year and not just during Lent?

Because you don’t know when you are going to need to move fast or get along without the supermarket…

Identity theft is a serious problem that you do NOT want to have. I use Lifelock.

And for your cybersecurity…

Wyoming Catholic College!

A great place in Rome…

More food for thought:

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

Check out the Cardinal Newman Society feed!

Be a “Zed-Head”!

Fr. Z’s stuff is everywhere

More food for thought…

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176

Even More Food For Thought

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:
1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.
2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests."

To set up a recurring, monthly donation (even a small one) go to the bottom of this blog and look for the drop down menu! Some donations also come through Chase/Manhattan (if you don't like PayPal).

I remember benefactors in my prayers and periodically say Mass for your intention.

I invite you to subscribe to a monthly donation.

Will you help? Go to the bottom of the page. So far, new subscribers for MARCH - TZ, AD, IB

Additional Food For Thought

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Fathers, you don’t know who might show up! It could be a “big fish” of one sort or other…

And... GO TO CONFESSION!

Leave Voice Mail for Fr. Z

Nota bene: I do not answer these numbers or this Skype address. You won't get me "live". I check for messages regularly.

Help the Sisters. They have a building project. Get great soap (gifts, etc.) while helping REAL nuns!

Food For Thought

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites. . . . Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

Archives

ENTRY CALENDAR

Do you use my blog often? Is it helpful to you?

If so, please consider subscribing to send a monthly donation. That way I have steady income I can plan on, and you wind up regularly on my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I periodically say Holy Mass.

Some options

The opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect the positions of any of the Church's entities with which I am involved. They are my own.